Keywords: Wang v Hur, misleading conduct, cooperation agreement, Queensland Court of Appeal, investment fraud, translation dispute, interpreter error, civil appeal, RTO, contract representations
By Honest Grace Legal | Civil Litigation | June 2025
Subject
Appeal Rejected Over Misleading Conduct Allegations in Investment Dispute
What Happened
Yun Wang, a Chinese investor, brought an action against several parties claiming that she was misled and deceived by certain oral and written representations made by the respondents into paying over a sum of $600,000 under a Cooperation Agreement. Wang alleged that the respondents had made false representations about the business’ value and its imminent accreditation as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO). The primary judge dismissed the claim due to not being persuaded that the pleaded representations had been made. This decision was thereafter brought on appeal.
Key Legal Issues
- On what basis should the appellate court interfere with the fact finding made by a primary judge?
- Could new expert evidence on translation errors from the trial be admitted on appeal?
- Did the trial judge make factual errors in rejecting the representations as false or misleading?
- Was the plaintiff misled by oral/written representations prior to signing the agreement?
What the Court Decided
The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
- The application for leave to adduce further evidence should be refused. The new evidence sought to be considered did not satisfy the condition of ‘special grounds’ as this evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the original trial.
- The trial judge’s findings of fact stood, particularly that the alleged misleading representations were not made before Wang decided to invest and that although the new evidence was apparently credible and not immaterial, it was not considered to have had an important impact on the case.
- The Court emphasised appellate restraint, deferring to the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the context in which evidence was given through interpreters.
Key Findings
- Interpreter accuracy at trial was accepted by both sides at the time; Wang’s later doubts did not justify a re-consideration of the case.
- The Internal Document, which Wang claimed was key to her decision, was shown to her after she had already decided to invest—undermining the reliance argument.
- The alleged promises (that the business was profitable, worth millions, and would soon be RTO-accredited) were either not made at all or were too vague/general to be actionable.
Outcome
- The appeal was dismissed.
- Wang was ordered to pay the legal costs of the respondents.
- Neither party was allowed to submit new expert evidence on appeal.
Why This Case Matters
This case highlights how:
- Appellate courts uphold fact findings unless there is clear error—especially where interpretation or credibility is involved.
- Parties are bound by how they run their case at trial, including agreed translations or interpretations.
- Timing and clarity of representations are crucial in proving claims of misleading conduct.
For civil litigants, the decision underscores the importance of thoroughly testing evidence at trial and not reserving challenges for appeal.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QCA24-126.pdf